Football 2013-2014

[eFestivals]

When's a dive not a dive? Bale got bookings last season that were harsh to say the least.

Every time last season that I saw him get a card he was defo touched, and at least on some of them he couldn't have avoided going down - so most unfair on that basis.

But why was the ref thinking he was diving to then book him? The answer comes back at Bale, because there's defo been occasions where he's gone down without having been touched.

So overall i'd say it pretty much evens out. If you don't ever dive you're very unlikely to have the ref judge you unfairly.

I think the players forget that the refs get to see it all played out on TV after the event.

[strummer77]

Going back to Ashley Young and his cheating, was he diving at villa and Watford aswel? Or is it just since he went to United?

United don't have a major reputation for divers although ronaldo and Rooney have done in the past.

[zero000]

Another 1-1 draw for swans with us conceding a goal in extra time. Laudrup must be tearing his immaculately quaffed hair out.

[kaosmark2]

David Silva out for a month.

That's gotta hurt City.

[thetime]

David Silva out for a month.

That's gotta hurt City.

Edited November 8, 2013 by thetime

[kaosmark2]

Should only miss a couple of games though.

Newcastle have done well from there tough period after all.

[The Nal]

"An audience with Alex Ferguson" later.

Can't wait!

[kaosmark2]

Who's defending Moyes after this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24872417

[big joe]

Liverpool have a good chance to steady the ship today with Fulham coming to Anfield. Not quite sure what result i want in the United Arsenal game. A United win should bring us closer to Arsenal, but i feel its more realistic to aim for fourth in which case it makes more sense to want Arsenal to win. You would think finishing above United would guarantee top 4. If we can just get to the transfer window still in with a shout and make a dynamite midfield signing anything is possible.

[thetime]

Looks like BT have snatched champions league football from SKY and ITV.

900m over 3 years.

[kaosmark2]

Saw that. Ridiculous figure.

I wonder what the terrestrial requirements they've fulfilled are?

[thetime]

Saw that. Ridiculous figure.

I wonder what the terrestrial requirements they've fulfilled are?

[kaosmark2]

I think they have to give so many free to air, no idea how many though. I presume like now 1 a week for champions league.

[kaosmark2]

True - but nobody's worse than the Tyldseley/Townsend axis of evil.

[zero000]

I think they have to give so many free to air, no idea how many though. I presume like now 1 a week for champions league.

Edited November 9, 2013 by zero000

[TheGayTent]

Other than the fact this new deal will widen the gap between the very rich clubs and the not quite so rich clubs, I couldn't really care less.

There are more meaningless and poor quality matches in the CL each season than there are meaningful and good quality ones. IMO. Plus, ITV's football coverage is abysmal.

[kaosmark2]

I kinda hope that they'll be doing the 'pick of the non-British matches' free each week, then have the British teams on pay-to-view as a way to try and tempt people in.

Other than the fact this new deal will widen the gap between the very rich clubs and the not quite so rich clubs, I couldn't really care less.

There are more meaningless and poor quality matches in the CL each season than there are meaningful and good quality ones. IMO. Plus, ITV's football coverage is abysmal.

[pink_triangle]

It doesnt worry me too much. These matches aren't hard to find if you have access to the internet, whatever platform they are on

[kaosmark2]

The big question is whether pubs go for both BT and Sky. Not showing 1 Prem game/week won't be a major killer for pubs, but they'll have to subscribe to BT for Champs Lge and Sky for most Prem games. I suspect it'll price a lot of smaller pubs out of regularly showing football.

[LondonTom]

The big question is whether pubs go for both BT and Sky. Not showing 1 Prem game/week won't be a major killer for pubs, but they'll have to subscribe to BT for Champs Lge and Sky for most Prem games. I suspect it'll price a lot of smaller pubs out of regularly showing football.

Edited November 9, 2013 by LondonTom

[kaosmark2]

Could actually be a benefit to smaller pubs at least in the first first season while BT try to get them to put their services on offer.

I do think they should be made to show at least one British team a week for free though even if its the shit matches.

[big joe]

BT are trying to present this as good for the fans. How is that exactly? People like myself who love watching sport and think Sky do a magnificent job - i can't for the life of me understand criticism of their coverage, its great - will now be forced to pay an extra £15 per month to watch what we already enjoy. Sick of it. Just let Sky have everything and let them chuck a few scraps to the BBC.

[Paul ™]

The big question is whether pubs go for both BT and Sky. Not showing 1 Prem game/week won't be a major killer for pubs, but they'll have to subscribe to BT for Champs Lge and Sky for most Prem games. I suspect it'll price a lot of smaller pubs out of regularly showing football.

[Paul ™]

BT are trying to present this as good for the fans. How is that exactly? People like myself who love watching sport and think Sky do a magnificent job - i can't for the life of me understand criticism of their coverage, its great - will now be forced to pay an extra £15 per month to watch what we already enjoy. Sick of it. Just let Sky have everything and let them chuck a few scraps to the BBC.

[thetime]

BT are trying to present this as good for the fans. How is that exactly? People like myself who love watching sport and think Sky do a magnificent job - i can't for the life of me understand criticism of their coverage, its great - will now be forced to pay an extra £15 per month to watch what we already enjoy. Sick of it. Just let Sky have everything and let them chuck a few scraps to the BBC.